Your Guide to Shopping Online …

Category Archives: tobacco tax

Brits caught his snuff agriculture were warned that they could face a hefty fine if they do not pay tax on their hiding place.

In recent years, some smokers have taken to buying tobacco seeds from companies such as Plantation House Tobacco Company and the seeds before planting them in their gardens.

Currently, a 20-pack of cigarettes costs between £ 7 and £ 8 and 25gram pack of rolling tobacco is sold for around £ 8.

A standard size allocation of 500 plants is enough to get up to 54 kg of tobacco – which will cost more than £ 8,000 in the shops.

But smokers with green fingers can face the long arm of the law if they do not tell the taxman about your stocks – even if it is intended for personal use only.

Last night a representative of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said: “Anyone growing tobacco at home to smoke should ensure that they pay the tax legally due, otherwise they could face a fine or have tobacco seized.”

HMRC told us a private person must pay a fee for any tobacco products they have produced, even if they are growers for their own consumption.

Campaigners have hit back at the crackdown.

Matthew Sinclair of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “It’s ridiculous that Britain’s complex tax code means you could end up being charged just for growing plants in your back yard.

“The taxman is determined to get every penny he can from people who just want to enjoy the smoke.

“High taxes on tobacco have not only hit ordinary people hardest, they also heat the black market time for a rethink.”

Angela Harbutt, the pro-smoking lobby group Forest, said: “I understand that HMRC should have a rule on this, but I seriously hope they do not waste their valuable resources chasing that grow something in their garden that clearly small scale.

“It strikes me as a bit funny.”

Grow-your’s-own Company shows no signs of slowing up.

Internet based-Plantation House says that one tobacco plant can produce millions of seeds, although it is illegal to sell or give it away.

The company’s coffinails.com website states the seeds of tobacco have increased as a result of the feeling that they have been “driven underground and banned in public places of anti-smoking lobbyists.”

He adds: “The pricing structure in the world wide doesn’t reflect the true cost of tobacco, more than a means of increasing taxes.”

Among my colleagues in the open fields of health and drug abuse, I’m almost one in hatred of President Obama proposed a doubling of federal cigarette taxes. My reservations stem from the hard lessons of U.S. drug policy.

As recently pointed out drug policy expert Dr. Peter Reuter, anti-tobacco supporters see the smoking rate as the only indicator of public policies success. When it comes down – as it almost always is in response to higher taxes – they are welcome without reservation. I passionately want more Americans to kick the habit of smoking. But I’m worried about how the extremely high taxes on tobacco expansion of the black market, which in turn can cause a draconian response of law enforcement.

In New York, legal, fully taxed pack of cigarettes costs $ 10-15, Chicago prices are only slightly lower. The working class and the poor are dependent smokers (ie, the majority of smokers) so face greater temptation to enter into the black market. Columbia University professor Shelley Cantrell documented that “$ 5 a person” – street vendor untaxed cigarette black market – is now common feature of life in low-income areas of New York City neighborhoods.

Extremely high taxes on cigarettes are widely evaded. Professor David Merriman of the University of Illinois at Chicago, organized team apparently did not squeamish researchers collect discarded cigarette packs from garbage cans and sidewalks in the 100 districts of Chicago neighborhoods. He found that 75% had no tax stamp, which indicates that on the black market or gray market of origin.

On-the-board increase in federal tobacco taxes not only to expand the black markets high-tax areas, it would also help to eliminate widespread cigarette smuggling high-tax states to states where cigarette taxes are ridiculously low. Such smuggling is not determined by the cash-strapped college kids with a few boxes in their backpacks. Organized criminal groups, and even terrorist organizations, are major players in the lucrative trade.

The most common policy response to the exploding of illegal cigarette trade is familiar to those skilled in the illegal drug policy: Do away with law enforcement. Arrest sweeps and tough prison sentences are now proposed government policy in Canada, where an estimated 15% of all cigarette sales are illegal. Get a Tough proposals also in the process of discussion is U.S. cities such as New York and Philadelphia. Of course, the New York City police are capable of rounding hordes $ 5 men (most of whom are people of color, low-income) and sending them into already overcrowded prisons, but the experience of illicit drug policy shows that to be a lose-lose proposition.

The task of the federal tax policy on cigarettes therefore is to avoid feeding the black market high-tax states to reduce cross-state operations, smuggling of tobacco products, and to increase tobacco taxes in states where taxes have room to grow without creating black markets. Flat tax increase on tobacco products cannot serve all three goals, but more creative tax policy could.

If we imagine for the sake of argument, that the $ 1.50-$ 2.50 package was the original selected range to receive a federal tax generosity, which will give 28 states below this range an incentive to hike state taxes. Citizens in these countries are much less smoke, better health and a full recovery of the state budget for the costs of smoking. And from another state gang of smugglers of tobacco will have far less incentive to maintain a presence in the state.

High-tax states would reap little net income from that part of the tax, which they made more than $ 2.50 a package Because of the loss of federal tax credits. This will give them an incentive to stop further growth or even cut back. This can have the effect of reducing the frequency of abysmal price level smoking cessation, but the same state benefit in terms of reducing the black market. As for the state revenue received by the state in a lot more money from a lower tax that people actually pay higher than the tax that is evaded by 75% of the time.

In states at the top of the federal stimulus range where further increase in taxation could reduce smoking only on the cost of production of black markets returned federal taxes can be used as the state sees fit. This can and should include attempts to reduce smoking in other ways. In the states, the federal stimulus below the range, the state legislative raise taxes in order to receive federal dollars, thereby reducing the level of smoking their inhabitants, without creating a large black market. And in all states, a rough adjustment of prices across the country will collapse profit cross-state ring smuggling of tobacco products.

The desire of the legislator and the possibility to increase the tax on tobacco products throughout the state as part of putting together the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, legislation that would once again allow their dooms Oregon counties levy taxes tobacco.

In so far failed budget negotiations between Democrats and Republicans legislative leaders the issue of raising taxes on cigarettes Oregon $ 1.18 per pack from 10 to 50 cents.

For the states, the increase will be part of a package of fixed-¬ nebulous increase personal, corporate, and “sin” taxes are designed to provide at least $ 200 million over the next two years combined. The new money, most of which the Democrats want in exchange for the introduction of curbs to public employee pension costs are deep, will increase funding for public K-12 education, colleges and youth mental health services.

Such a deal, if materialized, would it mean the end for House Bill 2870, a bill favored by Lane county officials, who will lift the ban on the county state tobacco tax, lawmakers recognize.

“It’s fair to say that if a user (tobacco tax) increase occurs, the county will not pass the bill,” Sen said. Ginny Burdick, Portland Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue Committee, WHERE HB 2870 was assigned.

Some county political leaders – including financial difficulties Lane County – lobbied for HB 2870 this session as a new “tool” for potentially raise funds.

Under the bill, county commissioners could levy a tax- which may not exceed the amount of tax on tobacco state. At least 40% of the revenue would have to go to tobacco prevention programs, mental health programs, or services to drug and alcohol abuse.

For both the state and counties, tobacco tax increases on tobacco can produce a healthy amount of income.

A 50-cent-per-pack increase in the state tax would generate more than $50 million a year. In Lane County, a 50-cent tax would generate around $8.5 million annually.

However, a significant increase in major states may tax the tobacco industry to seek voter referendum to change. In 2007, voters easily defeated a proposed 84.5 cents per pack increase, after a multi-million dollar campaign to which tobacco Interests exhausted opponents 3-to-1.

Lane County lobbyist said Alex Cuyler environment is that HB 2870 Effective policy in more than a slight increase in staff.

“District of view 10 cent tax on tobacco products as a victory for the tobacco industry,” he said. “It will not take up a large income, and it will not do anything to curb teen smoking.”

Unlike many other tax-related bills, HB 2870 does not require the support of 60 percent of the legislature to become law.

However, the House of Representatives passed a bill in early April on 31-29 vote.

Should a bipartisan budget deal completely fall through and the state tobacco tax remain flat, Burdick said, can it still be a “challenge” to pass HB 2870 through the Senate, where Democrats hold narrow 16-14 edge.

A $ 2 per carton of cigarettes will increase taxes, the statement was made on Tuesday, the head of the Canadian Cancer Society Sun, who wants $ 3 for tax increases boxes. A pack of cigarettes costs about $ 10 in British Columbia, and should be up to nearly 20 percent.

Kathryn Seely, chief counsel for the nonprofit healthy public policy, said that the increase of BC “He sits in the middle” of the Canadian provinces in terms of how it taxes cigarettes. “Studies show that increasing the price of tobacco products cause some smokers to quit,” said Seeley. “In particular, young people who are sensitive to price – this can lead to them not to take up the habit.”

Kathryn Seely, chief counsel for the nonprofit healthy public policy, said the increase means BC “sits in the middle” of the Canadian provinces in terms of how it taxes cigarettes. “Studies have noted that growth in the price of tobacco products will lead some smokers to quit.

Seeley said the company would like BC, which will receive $ 44.60 in the box with the new tax increase, ultimately, tax cigarettes as hard as the leaders of the Northwest Territories and Manitoba, which is getting more than $ 56 per box. Quebec and Ontario, the province’s tax cigarettes least as raising less than $ 30 per carton in taxes. In Ontario, the package can cost as little as $ 6.50.

“I understand that it is difficult for smokers to quit,” said Seeley. “But now there is a summer BC smoking cessation program that provides smokers with 1-888-QUIT line (through) that they can get advice and subsidized nicotine replacement therapy.” These supports are currently available to smokers who want to try to quit. “Budget also announced the maximum tax on cigars will also increase from $ 6 to $ 7 per cigar.

Some smokers have approached The Sun Tuesday agreed with the new tax, saying it could be an additional incentive for them to kick their habit. Accountant Megan McDonald, 33, was smoking at school and spends about $ 3,600 a year on her half pack a day habit. “I do not think that’s such a bad idea, because the soaking really not that good for you,” said McDonald. “If this is what is going to help people quit smoking, then hit in the pocket.

If they can not quit for their health, I’m sure they can go, because they could go on holiday somewhere. Vladimir Sychev, 27 years of business analyst who has been smoking for 10 years, said he believes that the new tax is a cash seizure and will support medical institution research.

Texas collects millions of dollars from tobacco taxes every year and speaks with tobacco companies which informed Texans about the cigarettes harms foe decades. The money are planed to be spent on anti-tobacco companies. Texas are allocating les then half of anti-tobacco revenue and spending. The American Lung Association spent money for to prevent tobacco use.

“We are faced with tobacco industry that is lead to maintain its market for kids and current smokers. State and federal policymakers must battle a changing of Big Tobacco and step up for programs founding and reduced tobacco use.”

40 of other states and D.C received F’s for suspending more than half of tobacco and anti-tobacco efforts. Big Tobacco has a strong hold over Texas gov. Philip Morris has donated in the thousand of Rick Perry’s campaigns. R. J. Reynolds donated $10.000 in 2010.

Aspects of public life feel obvious to many people who follow politics. To me, it feels crystal clear why tobacco revenue should be spent on anti-tobacco campaigns. But to convince others to agree with you, it’s important to explain why something seems obvious.

Public life aspects feel obvious for many peoples who follow politics. Foe me it is clear and crystal why tobacco revenue are spent by anti-tobacco campaigns

Tobacco lead to health concerns like heart attacks , emphysema, cancer and so one that cost the country and state billions of dollars every year. Tobacco deaths and illnesses cost the USA $170 billion every year. The Texas Medical Association said that every year the smokers loose their productivity and premature deaths cost them more than $20 billion. All these means that retail prices for a cigarette pack is $6.

Surely, anti-tobacco campaigns would save our money from the state as they have been proven to reduce smoking rate. Anti-tobacco use is also a good life issue. In Texas, more then 25,000 deaths are linked to tobacco. To promote the wellbeing and health of Texans, Texans should spend tax on tobacco and revenue settlement on anti-smoking campaigns.

The Health Ministry is all set to introduce a hike in on tobacco products taxes in its budget proposal so that it wants the tax component to be 70% of product retail price.

This is dramatic to taxation under which the country’s tobacco taxes are among the lowest. Less then 10% of retail price, state taxes and 40% of cigarette prices account for VAT.

We have proposed that 70% of the retail price of tobacco products should be taxes including VAT, GST and other levied measures, said senior at the Tobacco Control Department of the ministry. The official attributes correlate between the drop in demand with tobacco product price increase.

Our move is in line with the spirit of the 12th Plan where the concept of a sin tax funds expanses on control of non-communicable diseases.

According to tobacco economics report by the Bloomberg Initiative to reduce tobacco use, 10% increase in tobacco prices of tobacco products is for reducing bidi consumption by 9.1% and cigarettes by 2.6%.

The report made by researches including Dr. Prabhat Jha saying that India increase tax rate on bidi from Rs 14 for 1,000 sticks to Rs 98, from 9% to 40% of retail price, and from Rs 659 to Rs 3,691, from 38% to 78%, it will save 20 millions of lives in India.

A cigarette tax increase to 78% will avert 3.4 million premature tobacco deaths and rise about Rs 246.3 billion in gov each year.

India’s tobacco taxation structure has for long been criticized by the anti-tobacco activists.

Despite being a signatory of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), India’s steps in that direction are widely viewed as poor. In 2011, the WHO had even imposed a fine on India for insufficient anti-tobacco

High quality journalism requires global investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut and paste the article.

When Chancellor reached the end of his Autumn Statement on Wednesday without mentioning the debt cigarettes, smokers undoubtedly exhaled a sigh of relief. This meant a temporary reprieve from paying more than £ 8 for a package 20.

But another important threshold has been violated, which is threatening the ability of tobacco companies to raise package prices to offset falling volumes. According to research invested, it now takes more than half an hour of work at the average wage of production in order to afford a pack of cigarettes. In 1992, it took only 17 minutes.

High quality journalism requires global investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut and paste the article.

This measure shows the availability of a trend that many smokers may not have noticed: every time the government increases the debt of tobacco companies put their money on.

“If the tax is increased by 12p, they will increase the price of the package is 13p, so the operating margin at the top, too,” says Ed Salvesen, an analyst at broker Brewin Dolphin. “Smoker says that it is only the government’s why it’s rare to get a price increase at any time, except after the budget when it is headline news.”

The use of tax changes as a smoke screen to allow price increases for tobacco companies to keep their profits, cigarette consumption in theUKandEuropecontinue to fall.

A tobacco analyst, who asked not to be named, described the relationship between tobacco companies and the government as a “cozy conspiracy.”

“When the tax goes up HMRC is happy, and the price goes up, so that companies are happy,” said the analyst.

Tax is not only positive for the tobacco companies, however. According to market research group Euromonitor, it is also the main reason why the number of cigarettes smoked in theUKfell from 51bn in 2006 to 44.8bn in 2011.

However, during this five-year period, Imperial Tobacco – the largest tobacco company in theUKmarket share, with the JPS and Windsor Blue – managed to increase its margins by theUKwith 62 percent to 67 percent. In addition, Japan Tobacco International – manufacturer of Silk Cut and the second-largest tobacco company in theUK, has increased its global field by more than 10 percentage points to 35 percent.

But some industry observers warn cigarette affordability is fast approaching a tipping point.

“People will stop smoking when prices are at a certain point, or many people will trade down,” Mr. Salvesen said. “[Tobacco] shareholders are becoming more concerned about where they will be in five years.”

Volumes are falling rapidly inWestern Europe. Euro Monitor reports that the number of cigarettes consumed in Western Europe fell 92bn units 629bn between 2006 and 2011, led by a steep decline inSpainandPortugal, and higher taxes, combined with economic stagnation.

Imperial and JTI remain heavily exposed to these markets – with Imperial received more than half of their net income from the EU, and 43 percent of JTI reservations for 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in the region.

In contrast, only 22 percent of the adjusted income British American Tobacco in the last financial year came fromWestern Europe.

Martin Deboo, analyst at Investec, said: “In the mature markets ofEurope, the volume is reduced by about 3 percent a year; it will definitely be negative for companies whose business is concentrated there.”

In response, the Imperial contributes chopped rolling tobacco, such as Golden Virginia brand. Although roll their own cigarettes, usually less profitable than premium cigarettes, they still offer a higher return than the value brands of cigarettes.

“There’s a lot of down trade of cigarettes and fine cut we are looking to grab as much as those consumers as we can,” said Alex Parsons, Imperial spokesman.

Innovation is another tactic companies use to convince recession-hit smokers pay more for the same cigarettes.

In November last year, Imperial, presented the package “slip-Tec”, which opens with a sliding mechanism for its Lambert & Butler brand. The company also introduced a different price within the same brand. For example, smokers Fortuna in Spain you can buy cheaper soft pack instead of more expensive hard pack, giving them an alternative to trade down to cheaper brands.

But some industry claims there is a greater threat than availability: plain packaging for cigarettes, which are discussed in theUKand other EU countries.

Shane MacGuill, tobacco analyst at Euromonitor, said: “What is the key to the tobacco companies’ earnings inEurope, the ability to innovate and” premium “their products. Neutral package will remove the ability of the company will no longer be able to communicate” premiumisation with their consumers. “

With 67% of Indonesian men older than 15 years, smoking, and about a quarter of boys aged between 13 and 15 hooked on cigarettes, officials and activists hope that the recent increase in the tobacco excise tax will be the first step in rolling back the country’s nicotine dependence.

The government announced on Tuesday that it would increase the excise tax by an average of 9% next year to increase the revenue of the state, and to encourage people taking unhealthy habits.

“We welcome the government’s plans,” said Tubagus Haryo Karbyanto, the main fighter for the National Commission on Tobacco Control (Komnas PT).

“Our cigarette prices are so low that even kids can afford to buy chem. Why the smoking epidemic is so massive.”

Cigarettes sell for about $ 1 a pack in Indonesia, much less than in neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand, where the pack goes for $ 3 to $ 4. In developed countries like the U.S. and Australia, cigarettes can cost more than $ 10 per pack. Even the excise tax on cigarettes, which is now less than 45%, is extremely low by regional standards.

Tubagus said that raising taxes on cigarettes was the fastest way to curb smoking, especially among children and families with low incomes.

“In addition, the tax will not affect the cigarette companies because they will pass on the cost to their customers,” he said.

Global Adult Tobacco Survey released this year is the Indonesians as heavy smokers in the world, 70% of all male citizens over 15 years, covering series. According to WHO, about a quarter of Indonesian boys aged 13 to 15, and smoke.

Tubagus urged the government to amend the Tax Act and Excise Act, which provides that tobacco excise taxes could be increased to 60%, while for alcoholic beverages may be set at 80 percent.

“Cigarettes should be treated the same as alcohol, to get the best results,” he said.

However, Health Minister Nafsiah Mboi claim, which is 9%, more than was started in order to avoid resistance from tobacco farmers and lobbyists.

“Do not just look at the number. Better to do it gradually than face resistance,” she said.

Indonesian tobacco industry millions of working and is one of the largest cigarette manufacturing world markets, about 8% of government revenues coming from the cigarette excise tax.

Powerful tobacco lobby has been actively campaigning to block regulations that restrict the sale.

Campaigners say that despite the creation of more state revenue, industry absorbs money from low-income families, trapping them in a cycle of poverty.

Smokers from Maryland always pay the highest taxes for cigarette production, something like $2 for a cigarette pack; the taxes will increase by the dollar in 2013, making Maryland the sixth highest taxed state. Maryland raised its tax on cigarette with $1 in 2008; DeMarco argued that the increase of cigarette tax would encourage smokers to quit.

The one important thing about tobacco increase is in achievement of both goals. The Washington Times estimates the proposed increase that would bring $100 millions every year. It is a win for the state and we a re doing this because of public health measures.

Opponents for increasing have expressed the tax raising that would encourage smokers to quit and to travel across the states lines for cigarette purchase, which offer the second lower especially from Virginia State.

“For across-border purchases, an increase just make it more attractive,” State Senator David R. Brinkley (R) told the newspaper.

The Maryland comptroller’s office has also come out against the increase because of smuggling, stating that Maryland needs to increase smuggling penalties before it raises the cigarette tax again. Currently, transporting contraband cigarettes into Maryland is a felony with a maximum of a $50-per-carton fine and up to two years in prison; possessing contraband cigarettes is a misdemeanor with a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison time.

“Raising the taxes on cigarettes without tightening the enforcement on smuggling is going to lead to more problems,” Kim Frum, spokesperson for Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D), told the paper. “These are very lucrative smuggling operations.”

DeMarco affirmed that smuggling operations are large scale and represent a problem, and he said that he believes that the average consumers are not driving across cigarette lines and the smuggling has been exaggerated.

People are not going to spend $5 in gas for saving $1on cigarette tax.

There will be a little bit of that, but at the end you’ll see only some people smoking.

Supporters of health care make $ 1 increase in taxes on the sale of cigarettes their top priority for the 2013 session of the General Assembly.

Health for All Coalition President Vincent DeMarco said at a press conference on 14 November that the new tax hike will be based on the success of the 2008 tax increase and the increase this year on smokeless tobacco and cigars are not enough. Supporters say reduce tobacco use in Maryland may be associated with the last tax increase.

“Over the past ten years, the three tax increase on cigarettes reduced smoking by 35%,” said Marco.

Marco and the other defenders of the cigarette tax said that tax increases are effective in preventing young people from buying cigarettes.

Since 2000, the government increased taxes on cigarettes by $ 1.64.5$ 1 increase in 2007 generated about $ 100 million in revenue, Marco said.

The money went into the general fund and assist in the expansion of Medicaid in 2009, said Matthew Celentano, deputy director of the Maryland Citizens Health Initiative.

Coalition published a list of more than 600 groups that supported the tax increase, including religious communities, trade unions and health advocates.

“It is a measure of the health of the social income,” said Marco. “This is different from other taxes, and they have strong public support.”

2012 study conducted by the Annapolis-based research firm opinion of the citizens of Maryland and funded by the Health Initiative found that 65% of voters in favor of raising taxes on tobacco.

“Some lawmakers say it is a regressive tax, it affects poor people more, but to do so on health,” said the Rev. Fred Weimert, chairman of the Central Maryland Ecumenical Council. “This is a community that needs health care.”

Delaware Michael D. Smigiel was a critic of tobacco tax increases, because, in his words, taxes just a way for the state to get more revenue from people who are addicted to tobacco.

“There’s a relationship here, and it has nothing to do with tobacco,” Smigiel said. “We are dependent on money. If this is about health, let’s be the first state in the nation to ban all tobacco.”

Another problem, Smigiel said that Marylanders will drive across the border to states with lower taxes on tobacco as Virginia, to buy tobacco products.

“And until they are, they will buy the eggs and milk and bread and lottery tickets and alcohol, and we will lose all that revenue,” Smigiel said.

Comptroller Peter Franchot did not approve the tax increase, he is more focused on getting legislation passed to toughen penalties for the smuggling of tobacco products into or through Maryland from a low tax rate for these products.

“The two issues tax increases and punishment smuggling] to be together,” said Kim Frum, the press service Franchot author. “Raising taxes on cigarettes without tightening of smuggling is going to lead to more problems. This is a very profitable smuggling operations.”

Smoking-related diseases and deaths are a serious threat to the health of China’s future and prosperity. But this threat can be reduced with a strong policy action to reduce smoking.

Of all the alarming statistics on smoking in China, there is one that stands out. That is, without measures to reduce smoking, out of 300 million boys and young men to 29 years in the country at the present time, 100 million will die of premature death due to tobacco. This means that one out of three boys, who are now the sons, grandsons, brothers, children of school age, and one out of every three young men who are fathers, colleagues and friends will die prematurely.

One of the most effective mechanisms for governments around the world is used to reduce the number of people who smoke tobacco tax increases. The increase in the retail price of tobacco through taxation could reduce tobacco consumption by encouraging existing smokers to quit, reducing the number of cigarettes smoked per person, and to stop people – especially young people – from starting.

Cigarettes are very cheap in China, 50 percent of smokers spend about 5 Yuan (80 U.S. cents) or less for a pack of 20 cigarettes. The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in developed countries is much higher, due to the heavy taxes on tobacco products.

Unprecedented economic growth in China over the past two decades means tobacco actually becomes more affordable, and incomes have risen faster than the price of cigarettes. In 2000, bought 100 packets of cheap cigarettes will need about 14 percent of the average annual income per capita in 2010, it requires less than 3 percent of the average annual income per capita.

Framework convention of the World Health Organization’s Tobacco Control, to which China is a party, is a science-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health. It encourages countries to increase taxes on tobacco products, taking into account their national health objectives concerning tobacco control. In addition, as a best practice, the WHO recommends that at least 70 percent of the retail price of cigarettes come from the excise tax. The effective tax rate as a percentage of the retail price of tobacco products in China is much lower – 30 to 40 percent, according to most estimates.

Increasing taxes on tobacco products are not only save lives and reduce the country’s healthcare costs; it would also benefit the government, creating an additional revenue without hurting the economy.

Data collected by Professor Zheng Rong at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and Professor Teh-wei Hu of the University of California in the United States shows that a slight increase in the tobacco tax, if passed on the retail price of cigarettes will rise billion additional revenues for Government and save hundreds of thousands of lives.

1 Yuan increase in the price of each pack of cigarettes can reduce the consumption of cigarettes in China for 3 billion packages per year, reducing the number of smokers in the country of 3.42 million and increase the annual income of the state is 97.5 billion Yuan to 129 billion Yuan .

Raising taxes on tobacco products, which increases the retail price of cigarettes, would be “win-win” for China, not least for those millions of boys and young men whose lives would otherwise be lost due to this killer.

Missouri voters in recent decades have avoided raising taxes for a number of things: the funding of schools and transportation projects, improvement of 911 and pay for public health efforts.

The proposals were defeated narrowly wide margins, rejected in the general elections, primaries and elections in the spring. And they were rejected when supporter’s previous unsuccessful attempts I decided to try again.

Passing the tax increase in the state of Missouri was terribly difficult, regardless of the tax or a place for extra cash.

The most recent example of a non-tax state of Missouri was defeated in this month to increase taxes on tobacco products, which is called for divvying money between K-12 education, colleges and smoking cessation and prevention programs. On the same day, local authorities tried to win approval for the replacement of the tax after the state Supreme Court invalidated a long charged tax on vehicles purchased outside the state.

City and county organizations said the new “Use Tax” was rejected by two-thirds of the cities and counties where it came from. Richard Sheets, deputy director of the Missouri Municipal League, said “anti-tax” mood seemed to be a factor in the defeat.

“It’s a tough question,” he said.

In the state election, the taxes have been tougher. Raising taxes on tobacco products were brought down three times in the last decade. Cell phone taxes failed in 1999 and 2002. The plan to raise the sales tax and gasoline tax for transportation was rejected in August 2002. Tax proposals were also killed in 1982, 1988 and 1991.

A few years after voters rejected a tax increase to improve school funding, Governor Mel Carnahan and the state Legislature passed one in 1993 without seeking voter approval. In 1996, an amendment to the Constitution requires voter authorization to substantial tax increases approved.

The last time voters went to the Missouri state tax increase – not counting the ballot initiative for the casino, which included the tax component – was 1987. Before then, voters approved a new sales tax for parks and soil and water conservation in 1984, resuming it in 1988, 1996 and 2006.

Overall, Missouri voters have a 25-year-old back row of new or increased taxes, which translates to a lighter tax burden than other states. Federation of Tax Administrators estimated that in 2011, the Missouri state government collected about $ 1682 per person (excluding local taxes), lower than all but four other states.

17-percent tax on a pack of cigarettes is the lowest at the national, and Missouri was the second longest without raising taxes on cigarettes. North Dakota last increased taxes on tobacco products a few months before Missouri made in 1993.

So the need for voters to approve a tax increases?

And in combination with other policy changes may not work as it was four years ago, when voters signed the initiative of raising taxes casinos. But the measure, which was supported by the casino industry and the limited number of casinos that can be licensed in the state of Missouri and scrapped a limit to how many players, can lose.

Material benefits issue, too. Pointing to a specific road or building to be constructed may be easier to sell than abstract concepts, such as how much extra money will come in education.

Demonstration of some of the budget exhaustion can help win some unruly voters.

Patrick Werner, the state director of the conservative Americans for Prosperity, said that it will be a long time before he could see that his organization supported the tax increase. However, he said efforts to reduce costs, accompanied by demonstration, how budgets have been cut and what priorities of funding were managed could help persuade some Missourians to increase taxes.

“You’ll at least get a better reception from the people,” Werner said.

Approval of the increase may require a more extensive review of taxes Missouri.

Amy Blouin, executive director of the nonprofit project budget of Missouri, who was among the groups that support the latest tobacco taxes, said it may be time for debate on the modernization of the tax system to update the income tax brackets, and close business loopholes.

She said that she seems to be more active in the last “no” than tax hostility. Blouin said the doubts funds are used appropriately and concerns about targeting tax that pays only a part of the population, but also will benefit more.

“I think, Missourians reached a point where it becomes clear that they want services”, Blouin said.

But it is unclear whether that translates to the electorate is ready to say “yes” after years of failures.

Smoking-related illnesses and deaths are a serious threat to China’s future health and prosperity. But this threat can be reduced with strong policy action to reduce smoking rates. But this problem can be solved.

Of all statistics about smoking in China, there is one that goes out. 300 millions of young men and boys up to the age of 29, 100 millions will die a premature death because of tobacco.

One of the effective mechanisms around the world has reduced the number of people who smoke. Increasing the retail price of tobacco taxes can reduce tobacco consumption by encouraging smokers to quit.

Cigarettes products are very cheap in China; more the 50% of Chinese smokers spend 5Yuan on a pack of 20 cigs. The cost of cigarettes pack is higher due to the taxes imposed on tobacco products.

The unfrequented economic growth in China means tobacco has become more affordable, as their incomes have increased rapidly than the price of cigarettes. Buying the cheapest cigarettes would require 14%oer incomes, in 2010 it require nearly 15% per capital income.

The World health Organization’s Framework on Tobacco Control, is evidence based for to treat the reaffirms rights of all people to highest standard of health. It recommends that countries increase tobacco taxes according to tobacco control.

The World Health

Increasing of tobacco taxes would save lives and reduces the country’s healthcare cost.

Data compiled by professor Rong Zheng at the International Business University and Economics in Beijing and professor The-Wei Hu at the Californian University in the USA show that a modest increase in tobacco tax. The billions of revenue for the government and save thousand of lives.

A one Yuan increase in the price of each pack of cig could decrease the consumption of China by 3 billion packs a year, reducing the number of smokers. That is billions of dollars of additional revenue that could reinvest the benefits of China population.

A tobacco tax increase that increase the retail price of cigs from China, not least millions of boys and young men whose lives will be lost because of the killer.

Cigarettes are cheaper here because Missouri is the lowest-in-the-nation tobacco tax – 17 cents per pack. On Tuesday, state voters will decide whether they want to shed that distinction.

Proposal B would raise the tax by 90 cents per pack. This will move closer to the middle of Missouri national, giving the state 33rd highest bid. Taxes on other tobacco products sold in the state of Missouri will also rise.

Supporters say the measure will benefit both health and education. Money generated – about $ 283 million to $ 423 million a year – would be earmarked for public elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, as well as programs that prevent young people from smoking and help smokers quit.

“It’s a win, win-win situation for the state of Missouri,” Norm Siegel, president of the Health Foundation Greater Kansas City, said at a recent rally in the Capitol Rotunda. The foundation and the American Cancer Society helped bankroll the campaign and initiative petition, which was measure to a vote.

Opponents, led by cigarette manufacturers and retailers, said that if the tax passes, Missouri business will lose its advantage in attracting cross-state customers, such as Nevers. Lower sales of cigarettes could lead to lower sales tax revenues to cities and counties.

In addition, the increase in revenues from tobacco taxes can not increase education funding because lawmakers could use it to drive the current money school, opponents say.

“Just because the money goes to the front door, does not mean the current appropriations will remain unchanged,” said Ron Leone, who works for the campaign, opponents Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association PAC.

Similar concerns about the politicians can be trusted with taxpayer money helped to win 80 percent of the cigarette tax increase in 2006 and a 55-percent increase in 2002.

Supporters called the arguments of opponents scare tactics. They say that they are built in safeguards such as mandatory inspections, and are confident that the new tobacco tax money to go to school.

Specific suggestions budget will not be made before the assessment of public revenues are set, but several key lawmakers said in an interview this week that if Prop B passes, they will try to fulfill the wishes of the voters to increase education funding.

“If we have a real bad recession, I think we can do it,” said Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, who is in line to head the Budget Committee of the House, if he is re-elected. “If the public voted for what, I do not see why I have to get in the way of it.”

House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, said he would follow the example of Stream, the budget chairman. Jones said that he was misquoted in the media that indicated that he will ignore the will of voters on Prop B funding.

“I tried to explain, there’s just no guarantee of future legislation to ever be associated with that,” Jones said.

However, there is a precedent, following the instructions of voters in school money, said Roger Kurtz, executive director of the Missouri Association of School Administrators. He leads the state sales tax for education, known as Proposition C. It was held in 1982.

“Thirty years of track record on Prop With everything you need to feel comfortable that it will work,” said Kurtz supports B.

With the election only five days, both parties broadcast television advertising. But the coalition, called the Missourians health and education, is outspending opponents by about 2 ½ to 1.

Anti-smoking forces built a broad coalition, this time most of the slate of tax revenues to education instead of the hospital, like the previous proposal did vote.

The developers have also eliminated price loophole that benefits smaller cigarette manufacturers. This change resulted in the largest tobacco companies, including RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, sit out the fight.

Last Post-Dispatch/News 4/Kansas City Star poll showed the measure was a significant lead – 52% to 40%, with 8%undecided.

Missouri voters rejected a proposal to increase the state excise tax on tobacco products. The defeat of the proposal B continued steady vote against tobacco tax increases in the state, which has a low tax country for a package of 18 cents. Missouri residents also voted against similar proposals in 2002 and 2006.

Measure does not state a thin margin, 53% to 48%, according to the Missouri Secretary of the State. Boone County, however, voted for the proposal B by a margin of 60%. Seven other countries – Adair, Clay, Jackson, Nodaway, Platte, St. Charles and St. Louis counties – St. Louis city also voted for it.

Proposal B would be charged 73 cents for a package of more than a certain brand of cigarettes, and pushed for a package of tax cost of cigarettes to $ 1.50 and increased the tax on smokeless tobacco products, such as “chew” and “tobacco” 150%. It would also set up 3.70 cents per cigarette tax increase on roll your own tobacco. The proposal was intended to increase funding for public education and tobacco cessation and prevention programs.

Financial note on the voting issue, it will generate about $ 283 million to $ 423 million a year. Kelly estimated it would generate more than $ 3 million Boone County K-12 schools alone. University of Missouri plans to invest a portion of the expected revenue to expand its medical school and a clinical campus in Springfield. One time cost of these projects is about $ 33 million, which could be partly funded $ 26 million of the university system was to receive from the tax. State Reps. Mary Still, D-Columbia, Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, and Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, all favored the proposal B.

Kelly, who was unopposed in his bid for re-election to the House of Representatives, has spent much of his time and money campaigns for the measure. Both Democratic representatives expressed disappointment with the results. Kelly said he was not sure Missouri will move forward in the creation of new tools for education, but said he was pleased with the results of the local.

“I’m very proud of the people of Boone County, who supported it by almost 60%,” he said. “I am disappointed that we can not move ahead of our schools.” Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Oil Marketers and Convenience Store Association, led the opposition. Leone said Tuesday morning that the new tax could jeopardize the competitive advantage over its Missouri state border.

“760% tax increase trend reverses so we go from low taxes to the government more than four of the eight states of our borders,” said Leone. “This means that all traffic going to the Border States to stay at home, so this will have a major economic impact on small businesses,” he said.

Leone also doubts that the new tax revenues will reach its goals. He referred to the use of the state lottery and casino revenue in the past broken promises to fund education and health. “Promises can not be saved, and it is an abuse of supporters, said if that happens, you get X, Y, Z, and because they simply can not guarantee that,” he said.

“We’ve seen that twice before with lotteries and casinos, where money is not where everyone thought it would be,” an explanation that seemed resonance among voters.

On Tuesday night, Leone said he was “thrilled and grateful, but not surprised by the result.” Missourian spoke to Boone County voters on Tuesday morning to get their opinion on the suggestion of Penny Moore, manager of Columbia insurance who voted in Boone Fire Protection District headquarters Leone agrees that new tax revenue from the proposal did not go B have to set goals.

“I’m against it, because there will be no control over it later, for example, when the money will go,” she said.

Larry Allen, 65, also doubted proposal B would directly send money to education and smoking cessation programs. He voted at the First Church of the Nazarene. “I did not vote on the proposal B, because it is an amazing idea, but just like the lottery, the money will be allocated somewhere else,” Allen said.

Jeff Perkins, 48, a programmer at Columbia Insurance Group, said that he did not vote for the proposal B, because he thought that the government will abuse revenues. “It’s like the lottery, they do not use it for what it was intended,” he said after the vote in Grace Bible Church. Donna

Ogborn, 40, a special education teacher at West Junior High School, said she voted yes, because “it’s better for the children.” Joe Pintz, 38, MU professor of art, agreed. “As an educator, I voted for the proposal B, to bring in additional funding to support education», Pintz said.

Sue Sinele, 49, a nurse, also voted for Proposition B. “I think it’s sad that we have the lowest taxes on cigarettes in the country,” she said. “As a cancer nurse, I see a lot of deaths from lung cancer, so I’m for Prop B.”

Al never that has 56 years old isn’t a smoker. The cigarettes represented for his friend a return in.

“When they hear about the Missouri they wander any fags for them,” Nevers said. Cigarettes are not expensive because of Missouri’s law. On Tuesday, state with voters will try to decide where they want to distinct.

Proposition B would rise the cigarette tax with 90 cents for a package, this fact will move Missouri closer to the middle nationality. Taxes on tobacco products sold in Missouri will increase a lot.

Supporters take the measure that would benefit as public so educational health. The money that will be generated – an estimate from $300 million to $450 million each year, these money would be earmarked for colleges, universities, primary schools and elementary for public and other programs that turn out the youths from smoking and helped smokers to quit.

Norm Siegel, president of the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, said at a recent rally in the Capitol Rotunda.

The foundation and the American Cancer Society have helped the campaign to bankroll and the initiative petition that got the measure on the ballot.

Opponents that where conduced by cigarette makers and retailers, say that if the taxes will passes, Missouri businesses will lose their edge in luring cross-state customers such as Never. Minimum cigarette sales could result in lower sales tax revenue for cities and countries.

The increased of tobacco tax revenue might not boost education funding because legislators could use it to supplant current school money.

“Just because all the money goes in the front door doesn’t mean current appropriations will stay the same,” said Ron Leone, who is running the opponents’ campaign for the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Stores Association PAC.

The same concerns about politicians could be trusted with the tax money that helped to defeat and increase cigarettes taxes with 90-cent in 2007 and with 60 cents in 2003.

Supporters called the opponents that said that they have built in safeguards such mandatory audits, and are confident of the new tobacco tax money would go to schools.

The specific budget proposals won’t be drawn until the state estimate is set, but some key legislators would try to abide by voters that will increase educational funds.

“Unless we have a real bad downturn, I think we can do it,” said Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, who is in line to head the House Budget Committee if he is re-elected. “If the public has voted for that, I don’t see why I should get in the way of it.”

Tim Jones, house speaker, said that he would follow Stream’s lead the budget. Jones said that he would misquote in media reports that indicate that he will ignore the voters.

I tried to explain the guarantee of the future legislatures, Jones said.

With the election that take part any days ago, both sides are airing television add and coalitions, called Missourians for Education and Health.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates in Maryland’s tax increase on smokeless tobacco and cheap cigars which began in July will reduce the number of young people using these products by one third, according to a University of Maryland Law.

The tax increase passed in May raises the tax on smokeless tobacco and smoking from 15% of wholesale value of up to 30%. Meanwhile, the tax rate for non-premium cigars, such as cigarillos, Swisher Sweets and Black & Milds, increased from 15% to 70%.

“Those kinds of increases that will have dramatic consequences,” said Vincent DeMarco, president of Maryland Citizens Health Initiative.

Cigarette smoking is down

In the past 15 years, smoking among teens has declined by 40% in Maryland. After a series of tax increases in the gap, currently $ 2 dollar tax per pack.

Although DeMarco said increasing the cigarette tax was successfully and deterring teens from cigarette’s buying, they turned to cheaper alternative like little cigarettes or cigarillos.

AS the tax rate for cigars has remained at 15%, was 11% increase in cigar smoking among young people. Non-premium cigars can be bought for 69 cents to $ 1.50 in the stores and gas stations.

They are sold in different flavors like chocolate, vanilla, grape and strawberry.

On average, the tax increase has increased the price without premium cigars by about 40 cents and five packages for about $ 2.00.

“When you have to pay, say, $ 8 for a pack of cigarettes, and you’re a 15-year-old, do not know to become a pack a day smoker, because you just do not have enough money,” said Peter Hamm, former tobacco users and the national director communications campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “But, then there are these convenience stores and other outlets where you can buy a single little flavored cigar for a dollar, and every 15- or 16-year-old has a dollar.”

“You start small with no price shock, and then you care a little less about the price, because my brain is telling me I need more of this material,” Hamm said.

Smigiel: growth in an attempt to raise incoming taxes

Del Mike Smigiel, R-Cecil, opposes the tax and said it was a disguise for the state to collect more revenue.

The other tobacco product tax revenue is expected to grow by 25% in 2013 and to increase the total of $ 24 million over five years, despite the projected decline in sales, the study of the law school said.

Smigiel said that Marylanders will leave the state to buy tobacco products, and other goods in neighboring countries, to save money. He added that the state will reach children more effectively through education rather than taxes.

“Government doesn’t belong to that choice for you,” said Smigiel. “A tax is not going to deter youth from using the product. Some peer pressure and getting ads out there to show the consequences of this, which is much more effective than force someone to escape from the state to buy tobacco for a week.”

Pro-baseball great influence on the use of smokeless tobacco

DeMarco said that raising taxes only solves part of the problem. Children are more likely to use tobacco when they see role models, such as baseball planyers using them.

The link between chewing tobacco and baseball goes back as far as the sport itself. The image of the All-Star and Hall of Famers with a big wad of tobacco in their mouths banks in their back pockets gives teens involved in sports is a dangerous idea.

Many players have seen tobacco take a toll on their health. Hall of Fame outfielder Tony Gwynn had a cancerous tumor removed from his cheeks in February, which he accuses of using smokeless tobacco.

Major League Baseball took a historic step this year when his five-year collective bargaining agreement is limited to the use of smokeless tobacco. Players and coaches can not carry tobacco cans or bags on their body or form at any time of the fans in the stadium. They are prohibited from using smokeless tobacco during televised interviews, autograph sessions or team-sponsored appearances. The restrictions do not prevent players from chewing while they are in the club or not in the field.

Fines for using tobacco chew

For the second offense, the other written notice is given together with the “recommendations” for counseling. It is not until the third offense, the offender must pay a $ 1,000 fine.

“We believe that there are a number of players who continue to chew tobacco in ballparks, where children can see them on television while they play, and sometimes even when they are interviewed,” Hamm said. “We believe that it is not living up to the spirit of the agreement. We understand that there are cultural ties, and we’re going to be as patient as we can.”

“The ball players have to accept the change, if it is ever to be successful.”

Those for and against the common measure ballot elections, which would increase the state cigarette tax by 73 cents per pack blow a lot of smoke on the issue.

Opponents ofProposition B have bought billboard space on Missouri’s highways and interstates, saying it would amount to a 760% tax increase.

Area signs by supporters to fill in various areas and advertise that the measure will bring about $ 233 million into education.

Who is right? Both raise valid points.

Current state of Missouri tax rate of 17 cents per pack is the lowest in the country. This is almost twice less than 30 cents per pack is charged in Virginia, which is just above the Show Me State.

Half of the tax increase is scheduled for K-12 public schools, while 30% set aside for higher education. Remaining focused on smoking cessation programs.

It is not clear where the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, or MPCA, the main opponent of increasing the figure gets 760 percent. Officials could not be reached for comment.

Percentages aside, higher cigarette taxes may mean Missouri could lose its competitive advantage in the current States border, Patrick said Ismail, a spokesman for Show-Me Institute, a free market think tank.

The increase would put the tax on the Missouri 79-cents per pack rate in Kansas. It would also be comparable to the 98 cents charged in Illinois, which could reduce the number of Illinoisans, who travel to Missouri to get on cigarettes.

“My concern is that raising taxes makes us less competitive with Kansas tax. Current tax leads to a lot of crossing the border purchase of cigarettes,” said Ismail Missouri Watchdog.

He notes that this problem is multifaceted, with education, health care and taxation. He added that several health sides will complain if the increase takes place and reduces the state of tobacco use, as “smoking kills you.”

Misty Snodgrass, director of government relations for the American Cancer Society, which is poured about $ 2 million in the effort, calls it “a victory of revenue” for schools in need of funding.

State Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, one of the champions of tax measures in the Missouri General Assembly, said that “the tax would generate revenue that we need, and we also hope that it will prevent teenage smokers.”

But will it actually increase revenue?

Ismail noted out that a higher tax on cigarettes is a victory for public health, as people abandon this life threatening habit. However, this tax increase would be a loss to the education, because a drop in sales of cigarettes leads to a decrease in tax revenue.

University of Missouri economics professor Joseph Haslag conducted a study for the MPCA, estimating that 157 million fewer packs of cigarettes is likely to be sold in Missouri each year if the increase takes place, resulting in a $ 67 million reduction in the tax revenues of the state and local.

MPCA’s website set up to fight the measures calls the state budget a “shell game” and that funding may be diverted from education.

The website from Missourians for Health and Education said studies show that an increase would prevent about 40,000 youth become addicted to cigarettes and convince 33,000 adults to quit.

One group, which seems to be not against the measure, may be a surprise – the big tobacco.

Missouri was one of 46 states to enter into a legal agreement with cigarette manufacturers in 1998, which forced them to pay into the fund to help cover health care costs of smoking-related diseases. A loophole in the law of the State of Missouri, which has not been closed, allows those companies that have not signed the agreement to get a refund at the end of the year after the payment of the fund at the beginning of the year.

“This ballot initiative eliminates a loophole in the law that created unequal conditions for the cigarette manufacturers and retailers in the state of Missouri,” said Bryan Hatchell, a representative of Reynolds American Inc “Primarily for this reason, Reynolds American Inc. has no plans to oppose the initiative Missouri vote.”

This November, Missourians will vote on whether to approve a cigarette tax hike.

The initiative, Proposition B, would put an extra 73 cents for a pack on cigarettes, increasing the total amount of the tax to 90 cents per pack. Missouri currently has the lowest tobacco tax in the country at 17 cents a pack.

Income tax free tobacco used to roll their own stores will be 25%t and 15% for other tobacco products.

If approved, Prop B would bring in about $ 283 million to $ 423 million a year according with the assessment of the state auditor. The funds will be divided between K-12 education, higher education and tobacco prevention and education programs.

“It will hurt Missouri consumers, it will force small businesses to close, it will cause people to lose their jobs, and it will generate less tax revenue to local and state coffers, which are already at the limit because of the great recession,” Leon said.

Leone said that if the tax had been more reasonable amount allowing retailers to maintain their competitive advantage of the tax on the higher taxed countries abroad, he would support the proposal.

In 2002 and 2006, voters had the option of raising taxes on cigarettes, but both ballot measures failed.

20% of the proceeds from the tax would go to tobacco abstinence programs, 50% for K-12 education, and 30% to higher education.

Currently, the formula funding of schools is estimated to be $ 460 million under-funded, need formula will fund in full, the money will be distributed to schools based on the registration. This is different from how the money is usually distributed to school districts. The state uses the Foundation Formula to see how much each district receives is based mainly on attendance and local taxes, and at least 25% of the money in each school district must be used with respect to the direct costs of the class.

At the request of the Department of Higher Education: will be responsible for the distribution of funds for public colleges and universities, each institution receiving this funding should take it to a new or existing limited funds, these funds can only be used for education of future teachers, teachers of issues, improving the object, classroom instructional technology, and campus security at least 25% of the money allocated to be used for programs and initiatives related to education, training and development of future educators. This includes doctors, dentists, nurses and other health workers.

Otto Fajen, legislative director of the Missouri National Education Association, said his organization supported Prop B.

“It’s going to move the ball forward, so from the perspective of improving educational opportunities across the state, it is progress,” Fajen said.

Fajen said it is not a massive increase, when you think about how many students are in a state, but any help is important. He does not know why the performance initiative to funding for schools is different than the foundation formula.

Earlier this year, Governor Jay Nixon refused to take sides on the issue.

“I do not expect to be active in any way with this campaign, and we will wait for the verdict of Missourians this fall,” Nixon said on September 4.

Along with the presence of low taxes on tobacco in the country, Missourians have the 48th highest percentage of adult smokers to 2010 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In Missouri, 25 percent of adult smokers and 11.8 percent of people aged 12 to 17 are smokers.

Supporters of Prop B, as Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, for example, an increase in the tax on tobacco in Missouri and provide an important means of education.

“For the potential of teenage smokers, there is a strong correlation between the price and start smoking. And so, we know that the tax will generate revenue that we need, and we also hope that it will prevent teenage smoking,” said Kelly.

Opponents say that higher taxes will lead to loss of income. They are worried people will travel from Missouri to neighboring states with lower tobacco taxes, to buy cigarettes. If Prop B passes, half of the eight states of Missouri border will have higher taxes on tobacco.

“That argument has no intellectual basis, because the state, which has lower taxes, which are close to us just a tiny, little, bit lower,” Kelly said.

Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis, also spoke against the proposal. He says that there must be reform on issues such as tax benefits, before we tackle a tobacco taxes.

“We are making decisions in this state and those decisions are going the way of corporate welfare rather than the promises that we keep to fund our public schools,” Lembke said

October 6, 2012 (LBO) – Sri Lanka has increased taxes on tobacco products from October 06; notice posted to the customs office of the island showed increase to extract more money from the citizens and reduce the budget deficit arising from unchecked government spending.

The tax increase came before the budget for 2013, which will be submitted to Parliament in November 08.

In Sri Lanka, a tax on citizens can be raised without consultation outside of the annual budget through the so-called midnight newspaper just as citizens are sleeping, in a fundamental breach of the principle of “taxation agreement” practiced by free countries.

In March 2012, Sri Lanka raised taxes and alcohol as a loss of state-owned enterprises ran manipulate energy prices with the credit, causing a tax loss, money printing and balance of payments crisis.

The notification of the customs of Sri Lanka said, the excise tax on tobacco for cigars was raised to 7,000 rupees per kilogram and cigarettes than 60 millimeters to 4612 rupees per 1,000 of 4,037 or 57.5 cents per cigarette.

For cigarette between 60 and 67 millimeters taxes were increased from 9258 pounds to 8112 in March 1000 and the cigarette between 67 and 72 millimeters of taxes have been raised to 12,100 rupees from 10,953 1.0000.

For cigarette between 72 and 84 millimeters taxes were increased to 14,963 in 1000 from 13,815 cigarettes and more than 84 millimeters to 18 500 of 17 100 rupees in March.

The budget in Sri Lanka has risen to about 6% of gross domestic product by July 2012, compared to the year-end target 6.2% a year.

If taxes were raised or cut spending, the budget is on track to increase to 10%t of GDP.

The rulers of Sri Lanka in force, but not usually to cut costs and recruit more civil servants to add to the tax spending in the country, spurred sections of the ruling class, such as the Marxist JVP which is generally in opposition.

Lecturer at the tax payer-funded system of higher education has also been campaigning for more government spending, including on wages, which will require more taxes on the people.

Tax spending taxpayer funded education called as “free education” in an attempt to mislead the common people who bear the burden.

Tax increase to cover the high costs of the state, and borrowing or printing money can help stabilize the rupee exchange and to keep inflation low.

Debates about the taxes, are American as apple pie. But there is one tax that improves health and reduces health care costs and brings additional revenue to balance the budget and funding critical needs. Taxes on tobacco products, the data show, literally save lives.

There are now 3 million fewer smokers in the United States, thanks in large part the 62 percent of federal tobacco tax increase, enacted in 2009 to help fund children’s health insurance.

Cigarette sales fell by more than 11 percent in the 12 months after the increase in the cigarette tax, the second largest decline in history.

Teen smoking immediately fell by 10 percent to 13 percent when the tax increase took effect, according to researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

More than $ 10 billion in additional tax revenue tobacco was raised in the first year.

I feel good about this deeply. I carry the burden of the tobacco industry in my blood. My grandfather was R.J. Reynolds, the founder of the company bearing his name. Smoking killed my father, my brother and the other members of my family. I was a long-time supporter of higher taxes on tobacco, because the evidence shows that it is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and save many families tragic consequences.

Taxes on tobacco products have an even greater impact when implemented in a comprehensive and sustainable strategy to reduce tobacco use. They need to be supplemented with other proven interventions, including strong smoking laws against smoking media campaigns, assistance to smokers who want to quit smoking and restrictions on tobacco marketing.

To make further progress on tobacco control, the United States needs a comprehensive approach, the government is actively carried out at all levels.

That is the approach the Obama administration to give a new impetus to the fight against tobacco, since 2009 the tax on tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration have regulatory authority over tobacco, health care reform has expanded insurance coverage for smoking cessation, and unprecedented advertising campaign to raise awareness about the health risks of tobacco products and managed people interested in getting a free help line.

Unfortunately, many countries have moved in the wrong direction in recent years. Progress has slowed the adoption of tobacco taxes and smoking laws, and the state cut funding for prevention and cessation programs by 36 percent. The state will receive more than $ 25 billion a year from the town of tobacco and tobacco taxes, but spend less than 2 percent of it to fight tobacco use. States must do better.

From 2003 to 2011, the New York School to reduce smoking by 38 percent, from 20.2 percent to 12.5 percent. New York is also reduced adult smoking by more than half of the national decline.

And the data show that these efforts not only reduce smoking and save lives, but also save money. 2011 study showed that in the first 10 years of smoking prevention and cessation programs, Washington saved $ 5 in tobacco costs associated with hospitalization for every $ 1 spent on the program. A 2008 study put the return on investment program California almost 50 to 1. States that shortchange prevention and cessation programs are not enough for a remarkable return on investment.

Obviously, tobacco executives do not want to increase taxes on tobacco, because they know that they work. One argument they make is that tobacco taxes are regressive – that unfairly burden falls on poor smokers. This is arrogance. Cigarette companies have targeted low-income Americans and their relationship to tobacco; now argue that the increase in the cigarette tax is unfair to the poor.

What really regressive is smoking itself. Lower-income communities suffer from smoking and disease. If government policy can help poorer Americans to quit smoking, those regressive harm and costs are reduced. The campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said that saving for a pack a day smoker who is deeply significant, with savings of $ 1,000 to $ 2,300 per year, depending on the state.

After seeing the powerful result of the federal tobacco tax increase, elected officials should support higher taxes on tobacco. This is not about economics – it is about health. But the economy is pretty good, too.

When you drill down through the hype, Proposition B’s outrageous and unfair 760 percent tax increase, the largest tax increase in Missouri’s history, is not about education or health care. It is a responsible policy of tax, of the correct size and scope of government and politicians to spend even more of your tax dollars. Just follow the money.

Misleading statistics. While this may serve as political cover and spark emotions, tobacco and health statistics are not relevant to the debate Prop B, because not a single cent of Prop B must be spent actually treatment of tobacco-related diseases. Not one penny. Shouldn’t a “sin tax” be used to cure the “sin”?

Education funds will be diverted – again. When it comes to the state budget, what is happening in the front door could just as easily go back. No matter what supporters say, the state budget is an annual game shell, and there is no guarantee Prop B would actually increase funding for education. Remember that all the broken promises of education funding, which came from lotteries and casinos? Do not be fooled again.

Prop B is destructive to the economy of the State of Missouri, because tobacco is cheaper than half of our states overseas and benefits Missouri retailers compared to other boundaries of the four states will be significantly reduced. This leads to a massive reduction in cross-border sales of tobacco and petrol, beer and other products, causing a small family business to close and people lose their jobs.

The middle class will pay $ 67 million tab. Proponents themselves predict if Prop B passes, 157 million fewer packs of cigarettes to be sold in Missouri every year. Leading economist expects lower sales of cigarettes only result in $ 67 million per year reduction in sales and other tax revenue for state and local coffers. There is no free lunch. The middle class will be paying this $ 67 million a year tab for all, as always.

Prop B sets the panel of nine unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats that unilaterally and without legislative oversight will monitor hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Prop B allows even those political insiders in the pocket of the tax money and use it to enrich their special interests friends.

Just outside touch politician or special interest groups would dare say these tax rates are too low and should be massively increased.

State the problem requires a state wide solution. All Missourians benefit from essential public services, such as public education, so that all Missourians have to pay their fair share, and “skin in the game.”

Attempt to finance education of most tax minority populations, such as smokers, bad public policy, it lacks serious leadership, smacks of political desperation, and the ever-shrinking funding source does not generate nearly enough revenue to adequately fund education.

It would be like taxing railroad companies to pay for prisons or hospitals tax to pay for roads and bridges. It just does not make any sense.

Enough. You know, when you’re at home and watch the news or read the newspaper and think, ‘Wow, the government more and more out of control than ever? “Well, this is your chance to do something about it.

MPCA continues to support a reasonable increase in tobacco taxes, allowing Missouri retailers maintain their competitive advantage of our higher tax on taxable state border.

However, all Missourians, smokers and non-smokers, we can agree that while education deserves to be adequately funded and tobacco products deserve to be fairly taxed, Prop outrageous and unjust B 760-percent increase tax is too big and too dangerous.

Filipino tobacco farmers are alarmed at how Malacañang takes on their plight after a high palace official argued that the introduction of excessively high taxes on cigarettes will not adversely affect tobacco farmers.

The Palace seems to be “ignorant, if not indifferent” about us, said the 20,000-strong Philippine Tobacco Growers Association (PTGA), adding that Malacañang should listen to the valid concerns the farmers group that had raised before the Senate. The Ministry of Finance plans to increase excise taxes on cigarettes by as much as 1,000%.

Distor was refering to Secretary Ricky Carandang of the President Communications Development and Strategic Planning has been quoted as saying that “the bill will not have a negative impact on our farmers.”

Distortion asked how Malacañang can claim that tobacco growers will not be affected FD offer low-grade cigarette tax by as much as 1,000 percent, with 60 percent of their products are sold and used to make these available brands.

The DOF’s assurance that tobacco farmers would receive a significant share of the proceeds from the tax increase was highly doubtful, especially since experience has shows that government aid to them had often been slow and inadequate, Distor said.

He said that even the Senate President Enrile and Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. pointed it at one of the hearings in the Senate tax proposal when they cited the example of Republic Act 7171.

RA 7171 promotes the development of farmers in the state of Virginia tobacco production provinces, giving them a share of the revenues from excise taxes on locally produced Virginia type cigarettes.

Enrile referred RA 7171 as “RA seven-awan seven-awan” (awan is Ilocano word for nothing), who said Marcos means that, despite the law, benefits to the compensation to tobacco farmers is not something a regular basis. ‘

He said tobacco farmers do not need any form of alms from the government, “because we are not beggars.”

“We are honest, hard-working citizens who contribute to the growth of our economy,” said distortion.

Besides hundreds of thousands of tobacco farmers, said the local distortion (CSI) based on tobacco as their main source of income will also suffer under the tax proposal in the Federal District.

Distortions lead as an example Ilocos Sur, one of the tobacco-producing provinces in the country, which was the first class of LSU, because revenue it generated and continues to generate from tobacco.

Tobacco farmers, Distor said, are not stubborn for they have complied because they made the previous government’s initiative to plant crops other than tobacco as corn. But they regretted their decision and returned to the planting of tobacco, because they earn less from planting other crops.

In addition, the climate in their regions and the land they till is best suited for growing tobacco, Distor noted.

He recalled that PTGA is not against an increase in cigarette taxes on cigarettes, but against the radical measures that would make the cost low-quality cigarettes from the market and leave them unemployed, which are inevitable consequences of 1,000% planned increase.

Distor also disputed the claim of finance officials that tobacco growers will continue to survive, even at high tax rates in response to growing demand in the local tobacco in foreign markets. Distor noted that not all farmers grow and sell for export quality tobacco.

The Missouri Coordinating Council for Higher Education passed a resolution in support of Proposition B, the initiative to raise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products that appear on the November election.

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education supports a proposal from B, November ballot initiative to raise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco related products. This initiative will lead to an increase in funding for higher education by about $ 85 million annually. The CBHE approves measure to devote 25% of revenue for higher education for the training of future health professionals – including doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses and others – for high-paying jobs and to address the health needs of the state. The CBHE believes that this additional funding for higher education will make quality higher education more accessible to students, Missouri, enhance economic development and will improve the quality of life for many Missourians.

Board member Lowell Kruse, the former CEO of Heartland Health in St. Joseph, said: “Raising taxes on cigarettes – which is the lowest in the country – serves two important purposes: It will increase funding for education, which is in critical short supply, and it will improve the health for Missourians “.

The November ballot would raise the tax on cigarettes Missouri 90 cents per pack, the report says Associated Press. Currently, 17 percent of the tax is the lowest nationally. This initiative will also raise taxes on other tobacco products.

The proposal is projected to generate between $ 283 million and $ 423 million per year, 55% of the money will go to public schools, 25% of higher education and 20% to efforts intended to prevent people from using tobacco or to help them quit smoking.

Like many other political debates, economic issues permeate the discussion of raising the state tobacco tax.

Election ballot in November will include questions, suggestions, called B, which asks voters to increase taxes on a pack of cigarettes by 73 cents per pack. Ballot measure also aims to increase taxes on cigars, pipe tobacco and other products.

Supporters say smoking-related health problems are directly cost the state $ 2.13 billion a year. Missouri businesses will also lose $ 2.5 billion a year from lost productivity due to smoking, according to the American Lung Association.

“When we look at the use of tobacco, we know everyone pays, regardless of whether you decide to purchase tobacco products or not,” said Steven Hall, a representative of the association.

Twenty-three percent of Missourians smoke, according to the 2010 Missouri Behavioral Risk Surveillance System, an annual survey looking at the life of the inhabitants. It was the latest data on the prevalence of smoking.

Hall and other anti-smoking activists believe that a tax increase could prevent 40,000 teens from tobacco and trying to encourage 33,000 smokers to quit. These estimates are based on changes in smoking after neighboring states have a tax increase.

The tax rate is now 17 cents a pack, which is the lowest in the country. If it increases, as proposed, the tax rate Missouri will be higher than four of the eight neighboring states. Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas and Oklahoma will continue to have higher rates.

Opponents of the measure say that the low tax rate in Missouri draws customers from neighboring countries, which have contributed to the state’s economy by buying more than just tobacco.

“There is a lot of money that you pour in Missouri with these countries,” said Eric Johnson, a member of the World Tobacco Don Johnson, the South Glenstone Avenue in Springfield.

Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association have warned of the negative economic consequences if the cigarette tax increases, but it has not released any details.

Opponents also say that the tax measure would also have serious consequences for low-income smokers, most of the state tobacco users. World Tobacco employees sometimes get requests to hold off on cashing a check to the client until he or she is paid, Johnson said.

Shops specializing in cigars and other tobacco products, such as for him, in Springfield, concerned about the situation regarding the separate tax on cigarettes without tobacco can hurt sales.

“Oh, we have customers from driving,” says Jessica Hutson, owner of the store.

Only for it specializes in selling chemical-free tobacco products such as cigars and pipes.

Hutson said the store often gets “tobacco tourists”, people who make a weekend trip to the store to buy hard to find cigars or pipes. Those customers often come from neighboring states such as Arkansas, where taxes on cigars, six times higher than in Missouri.

Higher taxes might encourage some of those customers to start buying their products from online stores in other states, and not in person on just for him, Hutson said.

Mexican industrial group said Tuesday, increasing the cigarette tax, which came into force in 2011 led to the proliferation and smuggling of illegal cigarettes, which now accounts for about 17% of cigarettes sold in the country.

Confederation of Industrial Chambers or Concamin, said tobacco use has not declined in the year-and-a-half since the higher tobacco tax took effect, although sales of illegal cigarettes has reached record levels.

Congress approved the higher tax on cigarettes at the end of 2010, despite protests from the country’s cigarette makers – local unit of Philip Morris International, Inc (PM) and British American Tobacco PLC (BTI, BATS.LN) – and from the tobacco manufacturers.

Finance Ministry data show that the government collected MXN16.5 billion ($ 1.25 billion) from the tax on tobacco products in the first six months of this year, about 9% more than in the first half of 2011 and a little more than it has collected on alcoholic beverages, including beer.

Excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, telecommunications, and other goods and services, helped partially offset the financial subsidies for gasoline in the first six months of the year in the state oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos fuel sold for less than it cost to import it.

Concamin said his research showed most of the contraband cigarette sales are on the open market and informal institutions, and buyers are mostly men with low-income populations. The highest rates of consumption of contraband cigarettes were in the north-west and south.

The group says that the majority of the more than 5,000 respondents across the country believe that the price of legal cigarettes, which averages 35.50 pesos per pack of 20, was high, and the price of smuggled brands MXN20.50 packaging was fair.

Concamin said the tax would distort the internal market of tobacco, and called for measures to limit the sale of illegal cigarettes. Finance Ministry officials were not immediately available for comment.

California’s initiative to increase taxes on tobacco to pay for cancer research for at least one percentage point after the other too close to call for more than two weeks. With about five million ballots cast, the opponents of Proposition 29, led by about 28,000 votes. The Associated Press analyzed the region, where about 105 000 votes, and innumerable are determined on Friday was not enough room, where “yes” to win to overcome the deficit.

Cyclist Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor, led the plan to add up to $ 1 tax on cigarettes. Tobacco companies, led by Philip Morris, at that time pushed the opposition campaign, pouring millions of dollars in advertising blitz that cut from the support. Polls show approval of two thirds of the peak in March, but fell sharply in the weeks before the June 5 ballot.

On Friday, the absence of Prop 29 was 50.3 per cent to 49.7 per cent. Strongest support for the initiative in the area of the San Francisco Bay, and the more conservative places like the Inland Empire of Southern California opposed it. If the measure is passed, Californians would still have to pay only 16 high taxes on tobacco products in the country, at $ 1.87 per pack.

Supporters said they would return. “It was so close, I think it’s worth another try,” said Stan Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. “I think it would be terrible if Philip Morris and Reynolds get away with it.” He suggested that the proponents of the tax on cigarettes may turn to the Legislature, but lawmakers are usually rejected attempts to increase taxes on tobacco products. The opposition campaign will wait until all the votes were counted before declaring victory, the press-Beth Miller said.

Opponents of the measure have raised $ 47 million to combat it, a huge sum even by the standards of California. For comparison, Jerry Brown has spent about $ 36 million in 2010, his successful attempt to become governor of California. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his allies spent $ 47 million to discourage him recall task on June 5. Armstrong and the Coalition for Tobacco Control group raised about $ 12 million to support the measure, including $ 500,000 from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In a statement Friday, Lance Armstrong Foundation president Doug Ulman formulated a question of life and death. “The defeat of this vitally important initiative is a real tragedy,” he said. “Big Tobacco lied to voters to protect their income and spent $ 50 million to ensure it can continue to sell their deadly products in California children.”

While the price increases on tobacco products is a proven way to reduce smoking, especially among young people, the campaign ads supporting the tobacco companies are focused on pocketbook issues. Announcements said the money would be raised through the tax in California, but not necessarily be in the study. The campaign also raised the specter beyond the control of the bureaucracy to be created to oversee the collection and distribution of money.

The strategy is not just stir doubts in the minds of voters. Several major newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, spoke out against the measures, expressing general support for such a sin tax and reluctance to side with the tobacco companies. They argued that the proceeds should go directly to the state, which is now worth $ 15.2 billion deficit. As a result, the 2006 recall of California cigarette tax measures that have led to a large margin in the election until the beginning of the tobacco companies spent $ 66 million to defeat her ad with doctors.

It was unclear Friday whether the failure of Prop 29 were narrow defeat state ballot measure in California history. Previously, the closest vote in the last two decades has been on the school bond measure 1B in 1994, which were unable to 49.6 per cent to 50.4, according to Secretary of State spokeswoman Shannan Velayas. The second was a close friend of the measure of tax on tobacco products, which were 50.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent in 1998.

California was once at the forefront of smoking restrictions and taxes, but we know care about their health, the State did not raise taxes on tobacco products since 1998. Missouri voters are expected to weigh in on tax increases on tobacco products in November, and similar taxes, which go through the legislative process in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Illinois. The vast majority of recent tobacco taxes across the country have been approved in the statehouses, and not at the polls.

A few weeks ago, California voters narrowly rejected another tax increase, not only on cigarettes but also on those mass murderers – cigar and pipe smokers. As expected, supporters of Proposition 29 blamed his defeat on all of the money tobacco companies spend on advertising against the proposal. Whenever a candidate supports the progressive vote is defeated, the loss associated with money. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is not recalled? This is also due to money, but not widely taxpayer disgust with public employee unions helped bankrupt states (eg California).

On the other hand, in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama became the first major party candidate to refuse public financing of campaigns and raised more than $ 740 million in private money, outspending Republican John McCain’s nearly 4-in-1, or progressive complained that Obama’s victory was due to the money. Also, it should be noted, did the Conservatives. Those who complain about the tobacco companies spend on the proposal 29 also ignore the many hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-tobacco ads spent in California, as well as anti-smoking organizations in recent decades. Not to mention the tobacco control message drummed into young people from first grade through high school.

It is the voters of California have seen a total of 29 advertisements against the proposal and voted against the proposal for many reasons. I suspect that the majority of Californians who voted against the motion – the vast majority of whom, like me, do not smoke cigarettes, you know how unhealthy they are, and pushes them to smell – did it for the same reasons. (Full disclosure: I smoked cigars and pipes since I was a teenager, my father, 93 years, smoking cigars almost every day for 70 years, and my sons and I are some of our most wonderful father-son talks. On cigars ) Many of us deny that people – especially the poor, who constitute the bulk of smokers – should have their hard earned money taken from them at astronomical rates just because they participate in what is a potentially lethal activity.

This will allow the anti-smoking zealots to stun, but the choice between avoiding risks to health and taking away individual freedom, many Americans have really come down on the side of freedom. In addition, to put it mildly, morally confused society, which uses state funds to pay for a completely healthy women ruin perfectly healthy human fetus / child, but takes a huge amount of money people to participate in an act that affects only them. (Readers who feel that invented statistics, 50,000 Americans die each year from passive smoking, but who prefers to promote science may wish to read, among many other studies and articles, and two that are related to the online version of this story. One of them, your doctor orders Web site, discusses the myth of passive smoking. The other National Institutes of Health report on the same topic.)

I warned 20 years ago that the war against tobacco was morally wrong. If morality was the impetus to the animation, why not a similar war against alcohol, trying to impose its existence, the prohibition of its ads, etc.? Smokers may harm him, but alcohol is often involved in cases of murder and other violent crimes, especially sexual violence, drunk drivers kill and maim tens of thousands of Americans each year, and the majority of children and spousal abuse is accompanied by alcohol. No rapes drive in vehicles filled with family or spouse abuse because they smoked cigarettes or cigars.

Too much alcohol reduces the ability of conscience to function properly. Too many cigarettes or cigars do not affect the conscience.

If any American does not drink alcohol, almost nobody in America will die or be maimed at the hands of drunk drivers, children and domestic violence will be reduced by an incredible two-thirds, killing other people will be reduced by about a third, the incidence of rape and other sexual assaults have been significantly reduced, and millions of children do not have a permanent disability who grew up with alcoholic parents. (Link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics found in the online version of this story.)

On the other hand, if no one smoked an American – or, for that matter, if all Americans are smoking – it does not have any impact on the number of Americans killed or injured by other drivers, the number of children, spouses or other relatives abused, and has no adverse effect on the psyche of children. What’s crazy is that none of these facts, the issue of anti-smoking and other health fanatics. I also warned that, after tobacco and other harmful products will be prohibited or unfair taxation. Of course, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently proposed that the city ban on serving of sugar-based soda in the cup for more than 16 ounces.

After not drinking sweetened beverages from childhood, I think that every overweight person who drinks regular soda makes a big mistake. But I would prefer to live in a nation of obese people who are free, than in thin country nationals who are not. There are now calls to ban the sale of popcorn in movie theaters. Eventually, citizens will have to bear the calories cards that limit how many people will be able to consume on any given day. When adding a virtual certainty that most of the funds from another tax will be spent by the state, was not a good or moral grounds have voted for the proposal 29.

If the tax passed many if not most, of the cigar stores in California have gone out of business? In addition to the cost of our beleaguered state jobs, which broke my heart? When I am one of my favorite places in Los Angeles, Fat Stogies Ventura Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, I sit and schmooze with other guys – the latter an Orthodox Jew, Armenian, black, and one or both of the Arab brothers who own a shop – and thank God for America, where people from different walks of life so you can both enjoy each other. And I am grateful for my father introduced me to the joy of cigars. So, please, leave us alone. We do not harm anyone.

Richard Hayes works First of all alcoholic beverages on the area of Indian Oaks in Bolingbrook for 25 years and has sold thousands and thousands of packs of cigarettes from his regular customers.

This may change with the recently adopted $ 1-pack state tax which came into effect on Sunday.

“I consider the termination of the sale of cigarettes,” said Hayes. “I only sell individual packages for the convenience of their customers, so it does not really bring a lot of income for me. I would prefer people buy other products here, so I really do not feel strongly one way or another.”

Illinois legislators recently approved a tax increase, which means taxes on cigarettes is now raised to $ 1-pack, more than double the previous state cigarette tax, which amounted to 98 cents. The state currently taxes as a small cigar with the same rate as cigarettes.

Governor Pat Quinn signed into law on June 14, and the increase applies to all tobacco products, including roll your own cigarettes, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco.

Legislature hoped that raising taxes will result in $ 350 million. This plan is part of Quinn and the efforts of legislators to come up with $ 2.7 billion due to reduction and new revenue sources to fight the state for Medicaid. The measure also allows Illinois to get another $ 350 million federal match of the government to pay for taxpayer-subsidized health care for the poor.

Pankag Shah, manager of the tobacco outlet 675 N. Cass Street. Westmont, believes that most customers are aware of the tax, and because of this, they “supplied” for the last week or so.

“It may take two to three weeks before we really begin to see the impact, because customers bought before the new tax,” said Shah. “We will take a hit, but not to these people to escape from the fact that they bought before the tax.”

Shah believes that the long term it will have an impact on business, as many people will go to Indiana or other states to purchase large quantities of tobacco products in order to avoid taxes, he said.

While the Shah was aware of the tax, a smoker was caught off guard.

Heather Barnes, a customer outside the Westmont tobacco, 840 E. Ogden Ave., Said Monday she did not know about the tax increase, until she went to buy cigarettes.

“I heard there will be a new tax, but was not sure when it started,” said Barnes. “It’s funny, all these taxes.”

But she said she could give her a reason to cut back on smoking in an attempt to save money, and may even try to quit smoking.

“I tried to leave early; I now have another reason to do so. It costs too much,” says Barnes.

Danny McGoldrick, vice president for research of the national campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said that his organization reviews of raising taxes after they take effect, and the figures show that less tobacco is bought, the more income is included in, where each State uses different ways based on their financial needs.

“We looked at more than 100 tax increase, and every State sees decline in sales of tobacco consumption and raise revenue,” he said.

McGoldrick acknowledged that some reduction in the number of packages sold in states that have significantly increased their taxes was due to interstate smuggling and from smokers will be lower other taxes of the state to buy cigarettes, but noted that the decrease in consumption of more smokers to quit smoking and cut.

If the smoker goes local in Indiana, they can expect to pay between $ 5.50 and $ 6 per pack, depending on the package in the store, while in Wisconsin, it will cost $ 8 after tax. Cook County may be known for its higher prices, but do not bet on Chicago, where a pack of smokes will cost between $ 11 and $ 13 from $ 8 to $ 10 in the near western suburbs.

Current tax, local and state, a pack of cigarettes in the city of Chicago is $ 3.66. Illinois became the 32nd as the highest among the states and the District of Columbia from the taxes on cigarettes.

With the new tax, the state will evaluate as the 16th highest in the country. Neighboring Missouri has the lowest tobacco tax in the country, at 17 cents per pack. However, the situation may change as the Missouri put 73 percent tax increase on the ballot for next year.

Income tax is estimated to only part of the benefit of the tax, McGoldrick said. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that the tax will prevent 70,000 Illinois children from smoking, as well as to Illinois 50 000 adults quit the habit.

“Not to mention it will reduce the long-term health care by $ 2 billion,” said McGoldrick.